From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: pass at srfi-89 implementation Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 11:04:48 +0200 Message-ID: <87ve198hxr.fsf@gnu.org> References: <2bc5f8210805022037t73e3e30ay835ad4814e308397@mail.gmail.com> <87od72gidl.fsf@gnu.org> <2bc5f8210805191328o33656ab2ue07daf5f372c6610@mail.gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1211274420 28348 80.91.229.12 (20 May 2008 09:07:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 09:07:00 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 20 11:07:38 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JyNoe-0004ZN-DJ for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 20 May 2008 11:07:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50196 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JyNnt-00072m-RA for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 20 May 2008 05:06:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JyNmX-0006tG-68 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 20 May 2008 05:05:18 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JyNmL-0006mx-GD for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 20 May 2008 05:05:13 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55505 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JyNmH-0006lM-1g for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 20 May 2008 05:05:01 -0400 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:58027 helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JyNmG-0000w1-5V for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 20 May 2008 05:05:00 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JyNmD-00044t-ME for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 20 May 2008 09:04:57 +0000 Original-Received: from 193.50.110.120 ([193.50.110.120]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 20 May 2008 09:04:57 +0000 Original-Received: from ludo by 193.50.110.120 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 20 May 2008 09:04:57 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 28 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.50.110.120 X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 2 Prairial an 216 de la =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 821D 815D 902A 7EAB 5CEE D120 7FBA 3D4F EB1F 5364 X-OS: i686-pc-linux-gnu User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZDOHb4e2GvZiFWvDLWslaZhMNFw= X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:7257 Archived-At: Hi, "Julian Graham" writes: > Well, there's a reference implementation of SRFI-89 that (I think) > could just be dropped in and used, now that we have SRFI-88-style > keywords. It looks like the license terms would indeed allow us to do that. I'm not sure whether there's a precedent including non-LGPL SRFI code as is, though. Besides, we'd have to check whether the reference implementation, which targets Gambit's compiler, is suitable for Guile. Thoughts? > I was just hoping that the existence of `(ice-9 optargs)' > would make possible a more compact / potentially more efficient > implementation. Yes, it also stroke me as a worthy goal at first, but the differences you listed led me to think we might be better off with a separate implementation. Thanks, and sorry for the hassle! Ludovic.